It doesn't matter what mankind does. The Earth will do what the earth has done for millions of years with out us.
It will cool and heat and cool and heat. We will not change it.
It will cool and heat and cool and heat. We will not change it.
EdWort said:I'm all for conserving non-renewable resources, but I hate environmentalist wackos that work to take away private property because of a toad, bird, or salamander, and then put ridiculous stringent controls on business & private citizens that end up costing untold amounts in taxes and economic issues.
Cheesefood said:Wow. Weathermen are never wrong. This changes my thougts on everything.
orfy said:Cheese, haven't you missed the sarcasm smiley?
Nyxator said:Even if there was no global warming occuring, I want to breathe clean air. I don't want to live in a polluted city with smelly, nasty air. The nice thing is that by building, say, more nuclear power plants and vastly reducing the fossil fuel plants, we get cleaner air, and incidently, we might help reduce global warming.
One obvious solution is nuclear power. It's cheaper, makes tons of power, no one loses money in taxation, regulation, etc.
EdWort said:I'm all for nuclear power and I wish we would build a couple more refineries too, but why haven't we bothered to build them?
As far as the earth warming goes, I am not a denier, I am a doubter.
Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
cheezydemon said:Unless someone wants to make a valid argument that Al gore is either: "the cause of global warming", or "a renewable energy source", can we shut the F up about Al Gore? I don't give a damn about him or his personal life. And last I checked he aint running for office!!!
TxBrew said:The scientists they had said there is no debate over global warming and no debate on if humans are causing it. They stated only a few rogue scientists are disagreeing with consensus.
Vermicous said:The frequency of oxygen isotopes is directly affected by temperature. By examining the isotope deposits in ice core samples, the average temperature can be accurately gauged for the last 500,000 years.
olllllo said:That's an odd juxtaposition Tx. Hesse avatar talking about Holocaust deniers.
mrfocus said:The biggest problem I have with this subject is how it is usually called. "Global warming" makes everybody think it's going to be warmer everywhere, and then people say "there's now freezing temps in Florida"... Well see, the more accurate term is "Climate change", because in some instances, the affect it will have on the temperature will be unpredictable.
TxBrew said:Hesse was a Holocaust denier?
cheezydemon said:Wow...the founder of the weather channel.....
Does that make Oral Roberts God's personal advisor because he started the religeous channel?
It is OK to hate Al Gore, but to deny global warming because you don't like Al Gore is about the most politically minded thing that I have ever heard.
Glacier National park has 5 or 6 glaciers left...there were 50-60 of them in the forties.
The ice that has melted at the caps will not "grow" back unless there is an ice age. The ocean and land that are now exposed after thousands of years are darker than the snow and therefore absorb more heat from the sun, melting more snow and so on and so forth.
Did you fail to notice the drought in Atlanta?
Some people need to flip it over to the discovery channel once in a while. Oh wait! Al gore or some other weather channel hating democrat probably runs the discovery channel, right?
mrfocus said:Ehh... right.
The Sun has a hot cycle of 11 years. The end of the last cycle was in 2002, that means that 2002 would have been the year where the average temperature on Earth would have been the highest since 1993. Funny how we're now in the lower part of the cycle and how the NASA (you know those guys with all the money and the best scientests on Earth, they went to the Moon and Mars...) said that this year is the worst in terms of the thickness of the Arctic Ice caps. But of course, just cause you bring a few (dozen) men to the Moon and back, you don't know sh** about using satellite imagery to calculate the volume of an ice cap. I mean, it's such hard science compared to building a full-bodied suit that can resist -280F (on the Moon) and ceramic tiles that can withstand near 3000F temperatures on reentry of the atmosphere... They know how to do all the different kinds of physics, but they can't do simple math to calculate the volume of an ice cap...
Vermicous said:You are right Mr. Weatherman, I don't believe you. Not just because when I hear the word liberal, I tend to tune out whatever is being said. But because numerous points are factually incorrect. Unless this was stated in the 1950's, I don't see how anyone with any sort of scientific background can believe these statements.
Sea said:I'm so damn sick of fear mongering scare tactics: global warming, war on Terror etc..... The Jury is still out, and will be for a long time. There is no dissent that average temps are going up, however, there is no credible proof (nor may there aver be), that we have a lot to do with it.
Basic social science: A population in fear is easier to control.
Besides, aren't we all having this discussion as we sip on a albeit tasty, but alas proven poison?
abracadabra said:NASA admits error in gobal warming data only after someone else found it and pointed it out.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0817-nasa_snafu.html
Here in Atlanta the data is based on flawed data collected at ATL airport.
As an example when the official reporting center at ATL report temps as high as
42* F. I am less than 20 miles away and am regularly scraping frost off my winsheld unless I'm sadly mistaken water freezes at 32*F or less.
The largest temp difference was 44*F and I had frost 20 miles away. And this is not California we don't have micro climates down here.
Maybe gobal warming is happening, maybe it isn't. Maybe we are causing it, maybe we aren't. But how can anyone with a oz. of common sense think the govt can make things better. They can't even deliver disaster relief to huricane victims in a timely manner or secure the borders and that's their main freakin jobs.
Rant over
abracadabra said:Here on earth life is carbon based if you control carbon, you control life itself, a bureaucrats dream come true.
Cheesefood said:I live in Chicago. Randomly pick a weather scenario and there's a good chance it'll happen that day. I've seen snow in June and put on shorts in February. Still, they're almost never correct. Unless you're living in Hawaii where the forecast is "Sunny, 80º with light morning and afternoon showers" or England with "Cloudy", the chance of being an accurate weatherman is about the same as being an American League pitcher and having a high batting average.
So when a meteorologist (a word shockingly similar in nature to astrologist) tells me his thoughts on global warming, my first thought is this: You can't predict noon warming.
Dude, I know I'm sh!tting on your career here. No offense.
They have billions worth of sattelite, radar and doplar and the best I can get is "30% Chance of Rain", when we're in the middle of a 20 day drought. So yeah, I trust Al Gore over a dude from the Weather Channel. People actually return Al Gore's phone calls.
mrkristofo said:
Vermicous said:The frequency of oxygen isotopes is directly affected by temperature. By examining the isotope deposits in ice core samples, the average temperature can be accurately gauged for the last 500,000 years.
You use the word "never" very loosely. How do you know you "never" had a drought there 1,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. Where are your temp and hydro records from those times? Official record keeping of weather data didnt start until the late 1800's so that means we have 100+ years of "real" data? How can you base your assumptions on the global climate change on limited data sets. I know you will says ice cores or whatever, but how accurate are those? They just realized that Co2 follows temp not the other way. I agree we are in a warming trend, but to say "WE" are the cause is an outlandish statement, the earth will continue to go through these cycles well after Man is gone. And the people who continue to say there is a "unanimous consensus" from the scientists, they are wrong. Many involved with the IPCC disagreed and some even quite because of many of the so called facts were not factual, only theory.cheezydemon said:We have had 2 fairly serious droughts here in the last 3 years and never had one before. So yes, while nothing is proven, I see these droughts that are popping up more and more frequently as signs of changes to come. I'm happy you had fun at the conference, but I am entitled to my opinion, and for all that you know, I am right....dude.
EdWort said:Yep, Global Warming, the next religion, designed by AlGore to tax your money, change how you live, and control your life.
I get it that you hate Al Gore. Cool. But he isn't running for office, what is he getting from your taxes?
njnear76 said:That being said, we owe it to ourselves, future generations, and the other animals on this planet to not trash the only home we have. That means getting off non-polluting and limited fuel sources immediately, and researching bio-fuels, nuclear energy (short term solution), etc... We also need to cleanup the messes we made (nuclear waste, PCB, oil spills, pesticides, etc...) and learn from our past mistakes.
As a species we should know better. It shouldn't come to any surprise that our general disregard for our fellow man and our planet is coming back to haunt us in the forms of a tainted food supply, and devastating natural disasters.
Granted you can't avoid everything, but the only reason why Katrina was so bad was because the wetlands, which formed a natural hurricane barrier were destroyed to make room for more industry and McMansions.
zbeeblebrox said:I would like to see what you mean by tainted food supply? I have not heard anything of this. and aren't natural disasters always devastating. hence the disaster part.
Enter your email address to join: